alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6020 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

325 South Michigan Avenue in Howell, Michigan, as the ‘‘Sergeant 

Donald Burgett Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 6, 2018 

Mr. BISHOP of Michigan (for himself, Mr. MOOLENAAR, Mr. HUIZENGA, Mr. 

TROTT, Mrs. DINGELL, Mr. MITCHELL, Mr. WALBERG, Mrs. LAWRENCE, 

Mr. BERGMAN, Mr. KILDEE, Mr. UPTON, Mr. LEVIN, and Mr. AMASH) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 325 South Michigan Avenue in Howell, Michigan, as the ‘‘Sergeant Donald Burgett Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SERGEANT DONALD BURGETT POST OFFICE 

4 BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 325 South Michigan Avenue in 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6020 IH

1 Howell, Michigan, shall be known and designated as the 

2 ‘‘Sergeant Donald Burgett Post Office Building’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Sergeant Donald 

7 Burgett Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service

SEC Tracking Number: SEC00202

Ms. Rachel Leiton, Director

Division of Energy Employees Occupational

 Illness Compensation

U.S. Department of Labor

200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room C-3321

Washington, District of Columbia 20210

Dear Ms. Leiton:

National Institute for Occupational

Safety and Health

Robert A. Taft Laboratories

4676 Columbia Parkway

Cincinnati, OH 45226-1998

Phone: 513-533-6825

Fax: 513-533-6826

September 28, 2012

On behalf of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and as required 

by 42 C.F.R. § 83.17(d), I am notifying you of the final effect of the HHS decision to designate a 

class of employees from the Clarksville Modification Center, Ft. Campbell, in Clarksville, Tennessee, 

as an addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational 

Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. On August 23, 2012, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. §

7384q(b), the Secretary of HHS designated the following class of employees as an addition to the 

SEC:

All employees of the Department of Energy, its predecessor agencies, and their contractors and 

subcontractors who worked at the Clarksville Modification Center, Ft. Campbell, in Clarksville, 

Tennessee, from August 1, 1949, through December 31, 1967, for a number of work days aggregating 

at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this employment, or in combination with work 

days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees included in the 

Special Exposure Cohort.

This designation became effective on September 22, 2012, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. § 

7384l(14)(C). Hence, beginning on September 22, 2012, members of this class of employees, defined 

as reported in this notice, became members of the SEC.

Sincerely,

[Signature on File]

Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Director

Division of Compensation Analysis and Support

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 40312 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

JESUS RIVERA

,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:14

- CR

- 495

- 1

Before JONES, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Jesus Rivera raises an

argument that he concedes is foreclosed by United States v. Betancourt , 586

F.3d 303, 308

- 09 (5th Cir. 2009) , which held that knowledge of drug type and

quantity is not an element of a 21 U.S.C. § 841 o ffense. The motion for

summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED

December 15 , 2015

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-40312 Document: 00513307517 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/15/2015
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

STEPHEN MATTHEW THOMPSON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 76 WAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 30th day of August, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
JESSICA FRUGGIERO,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D13-1572, 1D13-1573 and 

1D13-1574

Opinion filed July 7, 2014.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Wakulla County.

Charles W. Dodson, Judge.

Michael J. Titus, Assistant Regional Conflict Counsel, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Joshua R. Heller, Assistant Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967), our independent review of the record in each case reveals no reversible error. 

However, as the state concedes, the trial court erred by imposing a special condition of 

probation requiring appellant to pay for the cost of drug testing when such a condition 

was not orally pronounced at sentencing. See Clussman v. State, 89 So. 3d 1093 (Fla. 

1st DCA 2012). This issue was properly preserved by appellate counsel through a 
motion to correct sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 

3.800(b)(2), which was deemed denied when not timely ruled upon. 

Accordingly, the judgments and sentences on appeal are AFFIRMED. On 

remand, however, the trial court is directed to strike from the orders of probation the 

special condition requiring appellant to pay the cost of drug testing. 

LEWIS, C.J., WOLF and WETHERELL, JJ., CONCUR.

2
|   | 1. | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company      as of and for the period covered by theReport. |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|               |   |                                                                             |   |
|--------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| July      27, 2010 | By:    | /s/ Jonathan      J. Martin                                                 |   |
|               |   | Jonathan      J. Martin                                                          |   |
|               |   | President,      Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial      Officer |   |
|               |   |                                                                             |   |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARVILA ESTRADA ADAME; et al., 

Petitioners, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 18-72420 

Agency Nos. A206-678-712 

A206-678-713 

A206-678-714 

A206-678-734 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 11, 2019**

Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

Marvila Estrada Adame, her husband, and their minor children, natives and 

citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 

(“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision 

denying their applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We have 

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

DEC 13 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-72420 

agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 

2006). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not err in declining to consider the two proposed particular 

social groups that petitioners raised for the first time to the BIA. See Honcharov v. 

Barr, 924 F.3d 1293, 1297 (9th Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (BIA did not err in 

declining to consider argument raised for the first time on appeal); see also Matter 

of W-Y-C- & H-O-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 189, 190-91 (BIA 2018) (where the IJ did 

not have an opportunity to make relevant factual findings, the BIA cannot do so in 

the first instance on appeal).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that petitioners 

failed to establish a nexus between their religion, including a related pacifist 

ideology, and the harm they experienced or fear in Mexico. See INS v. EliasZacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an applicant “must provide some evidence of 

[motive], direct or circumstantial” (emphasis in original)); see also Zetino v. 

Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An [applicant’s] desire to be free 

from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang 

members bears no nexus to a protected ground.”).

The BIA failed to address petitioners’ contention that they established a 

nexus between the harm they experienced and fear and an imputed political 

opinion based on a perceived association with the Knights Templar. See Sagaydak 
3 18-72420 

v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he BIA [is] not free to 

ignore arguments raised by a petitioner.”). 

Thus, we grant the petition for review and remand for the BIA to consider 

petitioners’ imputed political opinion claim in the first instance. See INS v. 

Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam); Coronado v. Holder, 759 F.3d 

977, 987 (9th Cir. 2014).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part; 

REMANDED.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service 

 

 National Institute for Occupational 

 Safety and Health 

 Robert A. Taft Laboratories

 4676 Columbia Parkway

 Cincinnati, OH 45226-1998 

 Phone: 877-222-7570 

 Fax: 513-533-6826 

 

 February 7, 2011 

SEC Tracking Number: SEC00179 

Ms. Rachel Leiton, Director 

Division of Energy Employees Occupational 

 Illness Compensation 

U.S. Department of Labor 

200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room C-3321 

Washington, D.C. 20210 

Dear Ms. Leiton: 

On behalf of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and as required 

by 42 C.F.R. § 83.17(d), I am notifying you of the final effect of the HHS decision to designate a 

class of employees from BWX Technologies, Inc., Lynchburg, Virginia, as an addition to the Special 

Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program 

Act of 2000. On January 6, 2011, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. § 7384q(b), the Secretary of HHS 

designated the following class of employees as an addition to the SEC: 

All Atomic Weapons Employer employees who worked at BWX Technologies, Inc., in 

Lynchburg, Virginia during the period from January 1, 1985 through November 30, 1994, for 

a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this 

employment, or in combination with work days within the parameters established for one or 

more other classes of employees included in the Special Exposure Cohort. 

This designation became effective on February 5, 2011, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. § 

7384l(14)(C). Hence, beginning on February 5, 2011, members of this class of employees, defined 

as reported in this notice, became members of the SEC. 

 Sincerely, 

 

 Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Director 

 Division of Compensation Analysis and Support 

 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
1 The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 06-1244

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Western District of Missouri. * Jeffrey S. Sauerbry, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: October 27, 2006 Filed: October 31, 2006

___________ Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Jeffrey Sauerbry appeals the 12-month prison sentence that the district court 1 imposed after revoking his supervised releas e. For reversal, Sauerbry argues the sentence was unreasonable because the court fa iled to consider the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
We conclude that the record reflects the district court considered the appropriate factors, and that the revocation sentence was not unreasonable. See United States v.-2- Nelson , 453 F.3d 1004, 1006 (8th Cir. 2006) (distr ict court must consider advisory sentencing range and policy statements found in Guidelines Chapter 7, and must also consider § 3553(a) factors); United States v. Larison , 432 F.3d 921, 923 (8th Cir. 2006) (district court need not mechanically list every § 3553(a) consideration when sentencing defendant upon revocation of supervised release); United States v. Tyson , 413 F.3d 824, 825 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam ) (revocation sentences are reviewed for unreasonableness in accordance with United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005)); United States v. White Face , 383 F.3d 733, 740 (8th Cir. 2004) (all that is required in revocation sentencing is evidence that court has considered releva nt matters and that some reason be stated for its decision). Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          15,086
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,607
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                39,972
<PP&E>                                           8,099
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 112,154
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,423
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           223
<OTHER-SE>                                      78,882
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   112,154
<SALES>                                         53,527
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                69,939
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                52,381
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,180
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,378
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,550
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,828
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,828
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .21


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

IN RE THE PETITION OF BRETT OLIN PR 22-0004 

### Cr_C 2 1 '272 n G. 1,1"-11 urt

. o. tsm)ntaria ORDER
Brett Olin has petitioned this Court for admission to active status in the StateBar of Montana after having been on inactive status since April 2020. IT IS ORDERED that upon payment of the appropriate fees to the State Bar of Montana, Petitioner shall be admitted to the active practice oflaw in the state ofMontana. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within six months of the date of this Order, Petitioner shall submit tothe Board ofContinuingLegal Education, P.O. Box 577, Helena, MT 59624, proofofattendance at thirty hours ofapproved ContinuingLegal Education to be credited to the time Petitioner was on inactive status. The Clerk is directed to provide copies ofthis Order to Petitioner and to the State Bar ofMontana. DATED this day ofDecember, 2022 For the Court, / 1 0 If

ChiefJustice 12/21/2022
Case Number: PR 22-0004
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Mindy Grossman, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to myknowledge: 

(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2010 of HSN, Inc. (the“Report”) which this statement accompanies fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and 

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operationsof HSN, Inc. 

Dated: August 4, 2010
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its condensed consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this
quarterly report is being prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report, based on such
evaluation; and




---



##### 



d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of the annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal controls
over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal controls over financial reporting.
 Date: November 15, 2010
    By:
    /s/ KI NAMKI NAMChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6084 

To amend title VII of the Social Security Act to provide for a single point 

of contact at the Social Security Administration for individuals who 

are victims of identity theft. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 13, 2018 

Mr. BISHOP of Michigan (for himself, Mr. LARSON of Connecticut, and Mr. 

SAM JOHNSON of Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend title VII of the Social Security Act to provide 

for a single point of contact at the Social Security Administration for individuals who are victims of identity 

theft. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Improving Social Secu5 rity’s Service to Victims of Identity Theft Act’’. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6084 IH

1 SEC. 2. SINGLE POINT OF CONTACT FOR IDENTITY THEFT 

2 VICTIMS. 

3 Title VII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 901 

4 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘SECTION 714. SINGLE POINT OF CONTACT FOR IDENTITY 

6 THEFT VICTIMS. 

7 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Commissioner of Social Se8 curity shall establish and implement procedures to ensure 

9 that any individual who requests a new social security ac10 count number due to theft or breach or whose social secu11 rity account number is used to fraudulently obtain benefits 

12 under title II, VIII, or XVI of this Act has a single point 

13 of contact at the Social Security Administration through14 out the processing of the individual’s case. The single 

15 point of contact shall track the individual’s case to comple16 tion and coordinate with other units to resolve issues as 

17 quickly as possible. 

18 ‘‘(b) SINGLE POINT OF CONTACT.— 

19 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of subsection 

20 (a), the single point of contact shall consist of a 

21 team or subset of specially trained employees who— 

22 ‘‘(A) have the ability to coordinate with 

23 other units to resolve the issues involved in the 

24 individual’s case, and 

25 ‘‘(B) shall be accountable for the case until 

26 its resolution. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6084 IH

1 ‘‘(2) TEAM OR SUBSET.—The employees in2 cluded within the team or subset described in para3 graph (1) may change as required to meet the needs 

4 of the Social Security Administration, provided that 

5 procedures have been established to— 

6 ‘‘(A) ensure continuity of records and case 

7 history, and 

8 ‘‘(B) notify the individual when appro9 priate.’’. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS